The General 'Toronto Wolfpack' Discussion Thread

[tms]

14 minutes ago, Kayakman said:

Please, please , please don't tell me that you people knighted those people...please don't.

yes Benito Mussolini  was awarded a honorary knighthood in 1923 when italy still had a king and queen and he was prime minister when he helped bring italy out of poverty all good Il Duce lost his knighthood when Italy joined Nazi Germany in 1940 in declaring war on the UK.

Robert Mugabe, was awarded a honorary knighthood in  1994 when his party overthrew the right wing minority white party of ian smith in rhodesia where  he gained credibility within the anti-apartheid movement.all good he had his honour withdrawn in 2008 following violent, disputed elections.

 

[Man of Kent]

8 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

Last year the RFL tried to make expansion clubs responsible for underwriting the RFL's costs for the Challenge Cup final, despite the CC Final being neither Toronto's nor Catalan's responsibility to market, advertise and sell. Again, pushing the risk with no offer of reward.

Again, I think SL needs to decide whether it is competition of individuals, each taking their respective risks and reaping their respective rewards, or whether it is a collective, sharing the risks and sharing the rewards. To me, it seems there is a cohort of clubs that want it both ways. If they want TW to take on the risk of getting a North American TV deal, they have no grounds to demand the rewards.

This is merely where the vague, ill-defined expansionary dream and hard financial reality meet head on and can no longer be avoided. This problem will rear its ugly head for Super League should one reach the Grand Final. What's the answer?

[whatmichaelsays]

Just now, Man of Kent said:

This is merely where the vague, ill-defined expansionary dream and hard financial reality meet head on and can no longer be avoided. This problem will rear its ugly head for Super League should one reach the Grand Final. What's the answer?

To me, that still doesn't justify that debacle. There are plenty of heartland clubs, with an equal if not greater chance of getting to the final than TW or Catalans, who would struggle to sell their ticket allocation. If you want to pass that risk onto one club, you need to pass it on to all clubs. 

The answer, frankly, is making the CC Final the 'Blue Ribboned' event that the RFL are ever-so-quick to claim it is. 

There's so much that I think you could do with the CC Final to make it a 'must see' event that appeals to a broad spectrum of audiences. The problem is that the RFL is still stuck in this rut of selling the same thing, in the same way, to the same people year after year after year. The days of WMCs across the north organising coach trips are long gone - the CC Final needs to do what so many other events realised a long time ago and move with the times.  

 

[Gooleboy]

2 hours ago, Derwent said:

He's been stealing a living for years. Inherited a great team built by Brian Smith and Matthew Elliott and has lived off that for years. When tasked with building his own teams he has been an abject failure, including his time as GB coach.

He doesn't do bad out of the Beeb either.

[Dave T]

53 minutes ago, Scubby said:

Actually agree with this ramble  lots of good points (someone has time on their hands).

It was messy before Covid and the waters are muddier now sadly. Asking Catalans for a bond to insure the RFL against losing a few thousand on the Wembley crowd still appears xenophobic and pretty silly now no-one can attend games at all.

Sort of agree with your point on Catalans, but it does show one of the major challenges with overseas teams as they become successful. It is unrealistic to just demand that the RFL sell every ticket regardless, we all know we can do better, but even RU with their riches and bigger numbers of support see huge drops for Euro finals depending on who makes the final. 

But I agree a bond is not the way to go, it was short sighted and damaging IMHO. 

[Damien]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

Sort of agree with your point on Catalans, but it does show one of the major challenges with overseas teams as they become successful. It is unrealistic to just demand that the RFL sell every ticket regardless, we all know we can do better, but even RU with their riches and bigger numbers of support see huge drops for Euro finals depending on who makes the final. 

But I agree a bond is not the way to go, it was short sighted and damaging IMHO. 

Literally if this was such a big issue £20,000, which is peanuts in the grand scheme of things, could be set aside from each clubs TV allocation and put in a fund for such eventualities. That is £240,000 a year which is easily more than enough to cover the once in a decade scenario where this has happened.

Heck the same fund could be used as a starting point to fund the likes of Tonga, Samoa et al touring in the event of losses, which shouldn't really happen anyway. Profits can be shared back.

[Man of Kent]

6 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

To me, that still doesn't justify that debacle. There are plenty of heartland clubs, with an equal if not greater chance of getting to the final than TW or Catalans, who would struggle to sell their ticket allocation. If you want to pass that risk onto one club, you need to pass it on to all clubs. 

The answer, frankly, is making the CC Final the 'Blue Ribboned' event that the RFL are ever-so-quick to claim it is. 

There's so much that I think you could do with the CC Final to make it a 'must see' event that appeals to a broad spectrum of audiences. The problem is that the RFL is still stuck in this rut of selling the same thing, in the same way, to the same people year after year after year. The days of WMCs across the north organising coach trips are long gone - the CC Final needs to do what so many other events realised a long time ago and move with the times.  

 

More can be done to shift tickets, for sure. I do think that problem is here to stay, however, and will get worse before it gets better.

It's a tough sell to a majority Northern audience for a minority sport final in London that has been superseded as the blue riband event by the Grand Final and the 'big day out' by Magic Weekend.

I don't want the thread to get bogged down by the CC final, but it does kind of symbolise the issues with expansion.

You say it's unfair for expansion clubs to take the risks but if they don't - and things don't work out - the rest of the game has to bear the costs further down the line.     

[Dave T]

41 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

 

1. I completely agree that TW are the unwitting victim of the pandemic, but they've been left to fend for themselves with any call for help apparently refused. Two years ago, two clubs pleaded for (and were granted) special dispensation to sign players because they couldn't even muster a 17-man squad. Those two clubs were this week calling to take TW's place before the body had gone cold.

2. If they want TW to take on the risk of getting a North American TV deal, they have no grounds to demand the rewards.

1. But we are all fending for ourselves. Fortunately the UK clubs have government support that has helped and may be able to stage home games with fans later in the year, but the losses are massive, including the governing body, so I'm not sure what financial support they can be given here. Everybody is doing what they need to manage their gaps in budget. TWP's gap is larger based on the nature of the club, including how they chose to set themselves up in Rochdale. 

2. This is where I 100% disagree, they absolutely can. Getting an outside investor to pay for expansion could be deemed smart, and if there are no benefits to be had, why bother, just say no to them in the first place. This really is prrof of concept, nobody has shown that Rugby can bring value in North America, SLE remain unconvinced, the onus has been put on Argyle to prove it can be done. 

[Dave T]

5 minutes ago, Damien said:

Literally if this was such a big issue £20,000, which is peanuts in the grand scheme of things, could be set aside from each clubs TV allocation and put in a fund for such eventualities. That is £240,000 a year which is easily more than enough to cover the once in a decade scenario where this has happened.

Heck the same fund could be used as a starting point to fund the likes of Tonga, Samoa et al touring in the event of losses, which shouldn't really happen anyway. Profits can be shared back.

I think you can have a pretty simple profit share model that means nobody carries a major risk. 

[whatmichaelsays]

11 minutes ago, Dave T said:

2. This is where I 100% disagree, they absolutely can. Getting an outside investor to pay for expansion could be deemed smart, and if there are no benefits to be had, why bother, just say no to them in the first place. This really is prrof of concept, nobody has shown that Rugby can bring value in North America, SLE remain unconvinced, the onus has been put on Argyle to prove it can be done. 

But how do you get investors to pay for expansion when they aren't able to reap the rewards of that expansion? If it is true that TW would be required to split the excess over £1.8m 12 ways, then I wouldn't blame anyone for believing that the reward isn't work the risk. 

I think there is a big difference between asking expansion clubs to fund their operational costs, but it is another thing entirely to say "you're getting nothing of our TV deal, but we're sure as hell going to cream off any deal that you can negotiate yourself". If the argument from the UK clubs is that TW don't contribute to the UK deal, surely the opposite applies? 

 

[whatmichaelsays]

22 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

More can be done to shift tickets, for sure. I do think that problem is here to stay, however, and will get worse before it gets better.

It's a tough sell to a majority Northern audience for a minority sport final in London that has been superseded as the blue riband event by the Grand Final and the 'big day out' by Magic Weekend.

I don't want the thread to get bogged down by the CC final, but it does kind of symbolise the issues with expansion.

You say it's unfair for expansion clubs to take the risks but if they don't - and things don't work out - the rest of the game has to bear the costs further down the line.     

I didn't say it's unfair for expansion clubs to bear risks; I said it's unfair to ask expansion clubs to bear risks but be forced to share the rewards. There's a big difference. 

The CC Final issue doesn't have to be here to stay and it doesn't have to get worse but as you say, that's another debate for another thread. 

[Dave T]

10 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

But how do you get investors to pay for expansion when they aren't able to reap the rewards of that expansion? If it is true that TW would be required to split the excess over £1.8m 12 ways, then I wouldn't blame anyone for believing that the reward isn't work the risk. 

I think there is a big difference between asking expansion clubs to fund their operational costs, but it is another thing entirely to say "you're getting nothing of our TV deal, but we're sure as hell going to cream off any deal that you can negotiate yourself". If the argument from the UK clubs is that TW don't contribute to the UK deal, surely the opposite applies? 

 

I'm not suggesting that the current model is the best one, I'd prefer a license fee or similar, just pay and get it over and done with.

But let's not make out that TWP are carrying out important missionary work for the game of RL, they are running a club in virgin territory, and SLE have said that they won't fund that work. They are being asked to fund their own club. To prove the concept that money can be made in Canada. Once you get to that place, there is no logic in allowing them to trade off the SLE comp and SLE not getting any benefits. 

Remember, this is not an SLE expansion plan, this is David Argyle wanting to setup a team, it really isn't unreasonable for him to pay for it and not SLE. SLE holds the cards here, and for all the talk of the good that TWP bring to the table, the last 9 months has been nothing short of a car crash, and has undone much of the good work of the previous 3 or 4 years. 

As I say, not convinced the model we are referring to is the best, but there are 100's of ways of cutting a deal. I just don't find it unreasonable that SLE doesn't spend its money.

[Man of Kent]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

I'm not suggesting that the current model is the best one, I'd prefer a license fee or similar, just pay and get it over and done with.

Award licenses for expansion clubs to the highest bidder?

[bobbruce]

6 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

So which sports club ( we'll keep it as a team sport for sensibility ) has all its playing staff based on a different continent to its ' home ? 

That was the question , can you provide a non stupid answer ?

New Zealand Warriors. 
 

different country at the minute at least. 

[bobbruce]

1 hour ago, Scubby said:

Actually agree with this ramble  lots of good points (someone has time on their hands).

It was messy before Covid and the waters are muddier now sadly. Asking Catalans for a bond to insure the RFL against losing a few thousand on the Wembley crowd still appears xenophobic and pretty silly now no-one can attend games at all.

Dave T tends to make lots of good points during working hrs. I think he must be on nights. 

[Scubby]

3 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

Dave T tends to make lots of good points during working hrs. I think he must be on nights. 

No, he's on days alright. He must have an amazing deception routine going on. Much easier if you are now working remotely mind  

[Dave T]

27 minutes ago, Scubby said:

No, he's on days alright. He must have an amazing deception routine going on. Much easier if you are now working remotely mind  

It's a bit more difficult at the moment working at home. My wife is far less gullible than my boss!!!

[Scubby]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

It's a bit more difficult at the moment working at home. My wife is far less gullible than my boss!!!

Gotta mix up your devices mate! Get your angles right

[TIWIT]

3 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

She's your head of state too

Don't believe Canadians are allowed to accept British honours and titles anymore.

[JohnM]

In my opinion, there is a limit to market penetration in the UK. However much "investment" there is in Leigh or Featherstone or Widnes or Batley,  it is but a short distance to saturation and  cannibalisation of nearby clubs  in terms of paying spectators, hospitality,  local sponsorship as income streams.

I do believe that London is a different case and that there really ought to be scope to develop the game much more, despite years and years of trying. Believing something doesn't make it true, though.

Looking to somewhere such as Toronto, then there ought to be scope for real expansion without affecting other clubs. 

Its this issue of investment business case. How on earth is anyone now going to be persuaded to start a club in a new territory if they have to do it purely as an investment. The business case would be so weak as to be untenable unless it as possible to stitch in the governing body's contribution, support and guarantee to feed and water the nascent club. 

I know we are not the NFL but maybe there IS something we can learn from them.

The fact that the NFL has been adding more and more games over the past few years, that is really testament to the set-up of the NFL brand in the UK. I think the NFL offers something different to what we’re used to in Europe – it has a true blend of sport and entertainment.”

https://www.sportspromedia.com/news/nfl-football-sky-sports-uk-streaming-revenues-study#:~:text=The National Football League (NFL,)%2C according to new research.

Toronto gone...boat missed?

[Damien]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

I'm not suggesting that the current model is the best one, I'd prefer a license fee or similar, just pay and get it over and done with.

But let's not make out that TWP are carrying out important missionary work for the game of RL, they are running a club in virgin territory, and SLE have said that they won't fund that work. They are being asked to fund their own club. To prove the concept that money can be made in Canada. Once you get to that place, there is no logic in allowing them to trade off the SLE comp and SLE not getting any benefits. 

Remember, this is not an SLE expansion plan, this is David Argyle wanting to setup a team, it really isn't unreasonable for him to pay for it and not SLE. SLE holds the cards here, and for all the talk of the good that TWP bring to the table, the last 9 months has been nothing short of a car crash, and has undone much of the good work of the previous 3 or 4 years. 

As I say, not convinced the model we are referring to is the best, but there are 100's of ways of cutting a deal. I just don't find it unreasonable that SLE doesn't spend its money.

What is the SLE expansion plan? Is there one or is it more of the same, i.e none and hope for the best?

[Tommygilf]

 

[Dave T]

23 minutes ago, JohnM said:

In my opinion, there is a limit to market penetration in the UK. However much "investment" there is in Leigh or Featherstone or Widnes or Batley,  it is but a short distance to saturation and  cannibalisation of nearby clubs  in terms of paying spectators, hospitality,  local sponsorship as income streams.

I do believe that London is a different case and that there really ought to be scope to develop the game much more, despite years and years of trying. Believing something doesn't make it true, though.

Looking to somewhere such as Toronto, then there ought to be scope for real expansion without affecting other clubs. 

Its this issue of investment business case. How on earth is anyone now going to be persuaded to start a club in a new territory if they have to do it purely as an investment. The business case would be so weak as to be untenable unless it as possible to stitch in the governing body's contribution, support and guarantee to feed and water the nascent club. 

I know we are not the NFL but maybe there IS something we can learn from them.

The fact that the NFL has been adding more and more games over the past few years, that is really testament to the set-up of the NFL brand in the UK. I think the NFL offers something different to what we’re used to in Europe – it has a true blend of sport and entertainment.”

https://www.sportspromedia.com/news/nfl-football-sky-sports-uk-streaming-revenues-study#:~:text=The National Football League (NFL,)%2C according to new research.

Toronto gone...boat missed?

I think there is something in using games, rather then necessarily cold hard cash to assist with expansion. Not unlike the fact that in next year's World Cup we now have 5 internationals, including the opener, plus Magic Weekend being played in the North East that can support the development that is ongoing there. I was a big fan of the 'On the Road' games that we did for a year before sacking off due to lack of patience and the results not being immediate.

I think we should be doing more in London, we should always have a decent presence, maybe Magic, Challenge Cup and an International - giving a regular program of games that can be pushed to new fans in the capital every year without fail. It is all too sporadic at the moment.

We also could have done this in Canada in advance of TWP's SL entry - we could have staged a SL game or two, maybe an England game.

But ultimately the problem is that we don't have an expansion strategy, with our without money. It is sporadic and opportunistic, which is fine on its own, but it is rather reliant on others. I do think though that one of the problems with Toronto is that if we had sat down 5 years ago and wrote a well-funded expansion strategy for the RFL/SLE to embark on, Toronto and Ottawa wouldn't have been anywhere near the list. 

I am more frustrated that we don't have effective plans to expand further around the UK and France than not funding TWP. 

I wouldn't be surprised if Argyle has invested £15m - and what is the legacy if TWP go belly up now?

I think the area SLE could have been more proactive would have been around logistical support rather than funding. But we shouldn't be embarrasses about making demands of rich people who want to create a team and join SL. 

There was a clear difference between how we admitted Catalans vs how we admitted TWP, and the reason for that is one was targeted expansion, the other was opportunistic and driven by a rich bloke who fancied setting up a team. 

[Dave T]

10 minutes ago, Damien said:

What is the SLE expansion plan? Is there one or is it more of the same, i.e none and hope for the best?

Funnily enough, had just acknowledged this point in my reply to JohnM.

 

[Dave T]

Just now, Tommygilf said:

 

I think Bob Hunter is TWP's big hope. He speaks sense and exudes calmness and common sense. I hope he stays with them and navigates them through this and gets a proper grip on their setup. I think that may be the way they get through this.